One would think that if there were an article with my name in it, I would be more than a little interested in reading it. But, to be honest, it’s been happening on a daily basis, and by one author alone, one Mr Tony Greenstein, that I can’t bring myself to do anything more than give it a gliss reading, my “vanity” hasn’t gotten to extreme levels yet, and I have better things to be doing. But, considering the author, even by virtue of a skim, it is impossible not to constantly bang into a thick wall of lies so big that they quite simply jump straight out.

Not wanting to belabour anyone much longer, because 200 names, including some who have activist history spanning decades, academics, writers, bloggers, philosophers, editors, people from every continent and many religious, political, ethnic and economic backgrounds and yes… even a survivor of Holocaust, have signed their names to an open letter, http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com/2008/02/petition-for-two-activists-that-you.html calling for Tony Greenstein to stop abusing his “air time” by engaging in character assassination of two activists for Palestine, especially by use of distortion and fabrication. Rather than accept their plea, or listen to them, he has decided to increase his daily output and actually double it. So far, his echo chamber has been an obscure blog in the UK with maybe 50 readers, and one that’s been created ad hoc for it, judging by the comments, maybe it has two. It seems that it’s important for him to focus on three names he doesn’t like, but quite ignores that all the top bloggers are there. I wonder why this is? But now, Amin has published his reply to the article in question. Amin has quite a few more readers, so I believe it is essential to at least address some of the content within, given that I am called in cause. I do apologise, but I simply cannot bear to read the entire article, so I am not focusing on deconstructing the entire sandcastle that it obviously is. I will only focus on several key points that I am especially qualified to respond to.

Number 1) Greenstein writes:“Rooij uses the adjective vile no less than four times. Ive written a vile article about him and made vile accusations of anti-Semitism against Atzmon and Rizzo [AR].”

Answer: What is so glaring here is that De Rooij does not once mention my name in the piece! How can we believe the rest of this paper the author simply is incapable of identifying who is involved? Yet, I already failed to mention that he gets the name of the author wrong as well. Last week, he said he had never heard of the chap. Strange… for a man who claims to be very active (and I have no doubt that he is, for all the time he spends on line) to never have encountered even one of the writings of Paul De Rooij. I remember widely circulating his Dictionary of the Occupation, almost every activist I know has read and greatly appreciated it. It was on Counterpunch, not some obscure UK socialist blog that mostly Zionists contribute to. Greenstein is simply doing a knee-jerk act of smear campaigning.

Number 2) Greenstein writes:“But again, what has this to do with the Palestinians? Atzmon distributes Eisens pamphlets and now signs up to all the above nonsense. Read Gilad Atzmon Now an Open Holocaust Denier.”

Answer: Calling other people’s writing pamphlets can be overlooked, but then again, are they pamphlets because of their political orientation? If that is true, the very article Greenstein cites, another of his Socialist Unity smearfests, takes its information from two sources that are far from objective news sources, The Adelaide Institute, (a Holocaust Revisionist site), and Press TV, an Iranian site that seems to quite frequently print news that is inaccurate or outright disinformation, according to journalists who fact check their material. Once it had been established that Tony’s sources (which make HIM a distributor of material from a Revisionist site) had actually used misquotes and disinformation, taken information from one trial and shifted it to another that had nothing to do with it, this did not cause him to wonder if his haste was not to be in some way suspect, and his opinion amended. No, he does not take any of this into account, and is still, on this date, distributing false material as if it were accurate! Another reason vile is an appropriate word to describe the attacks. And why is it vile? To quote Tony Greenstein: What has this to do with the Palestinians?

Number 3) Greenstein writes:“Rooij describes me on the Cork PSC article as close to the anti-boycott Engage. But that is ironic since I have campaigned ceaselessly to support boycott. Unison, the second largest union in Britain voted to support boycott last summer. I spoke in favour of that position, as a Jewish member of the union, and it was passed by at least 80%. For that I am some form of racial segregationist?!! Get real Rooij.”

Answer: The fact that Greenstein still circulates the lie that I am against the boycott, when he himself encouraged me to break it, is quite rich. But, let me mention another item that sticks out at me, UNISON. As a matter of fact, given that Redress, a UK site dedicated to the Palestinian cause, managed by Palestinians, had published the open letter, was cause for Tony to write this:

“Yes an excellent idea this petition. I’m so glad you included the following paragraph: We also take the opportunity to condemn the strangling siege that is being imposed over the Gaza Strip in particular and the West Bank and the rest of the Palestinian Arab people in general to complete their ethnic cleansing from their historic homeland.

It’s quite important you know, pity that it was an afterthought to the ‘defend Mary Rizzo and Gilad Atzmon’ campaign because of course they are the people who matter most.

Since it is published on redress I am asking my own union UNISON to remove all references to Redress from its sites and I will contact the TUC and SERTUC, of which I am a trades council delegate, to ask that they contact all unions and ask them to have nothing to do with Redress on their websites or any similar anti-semitic web site since it is clear that they are part of this.

Perhaps you could ask Atzmon what he means by this statement?

‘I do not wish to enter the debate regarding the truth of the Holocaust’. Does he believe there is a debate about the ‘truth’ of the holocaust? And about whether the earth is flat?

It seems Atzmon’s lies are catching him out now that we all know that he has signed up as a holocaust denier.

It would appear that those whom the gods seek to destroy they first drive mad.

Tony Greenstein”

He proudly announces that they have done so. This is lobbying ad personam. The unions do his personal bidding, and he expects them to.

Number 4) Greenstein writes:“Ironically, at the same time, Atzmon was denouncing the academic boycott as book burning (and here).”

Answer: This famous misrepresentation and distortion of the opinion of someone is PURE MacCarthyism. What did Gilad Atzmon say to me in the interview? Let’s look (and to avoid any accusations of manipulative editing, I am quoting the response in full):

“Gilad: Boycott is a real complicated issue. For years we’ve been arguing in favour of divestment and boycott. At the time I supported any form of boycott in Israel, its products and its culture.

There are some elements in the boycott that are obviously very welcome. For instance, the fact that UK unions are standing up against Zionist evil is a major shift in the very right direction. The Boycott is certainly bad news for Israel and this is wonderful news in itself. Yesterday, I went to a reading of a play, it was actually a theatrical adaptation my latest book. The producer is Jewish, and at a certain stage when we were discussing the meaning of the play he stood up and said. You see, we had a Jewish State, it is now sixty years later, and it is a very horrible place, it is so horrible that it has now been boycotted. And this is there to make us think, where did it go wrong? This is the most positive impact of the boycott. It makes people reflect.

Yet, I have some serious reservations, which I am inclined to mention. One, I see a tremendous difference between banning an avocado and a book. I would welcome any form of financial restrictions on Israel and its supportive bodies yet, I truly believe in freedom of speech and oppose any form of Maccarthyism or intellectual censorship of any sort. Thus, interfering with academic freedom isnt exactly something I can blindly advocate. Unlike some of my best enlightened friends, I am against any form of gatekeeping or book burning. But it goes further, I actually want to hear what Israelis and Zionists have to say. I want to read their books. I want to confront their academics. If justice is on our side we should be able to confront them.

Mary: Of course, they wont stop writing or proposing their ideas, and actually, they might become more reactionary in the process.

Gilad: Actually, I do not think that they can become any more reactionary. The second point is, to impose a boycott is to employ a boycotter. When it comes to an academic boycott I would expect the inquisitor in charge to be a scholar of great esteem. This isn’t the case obviously. The reason is simple. As it naturally happens, major intellectuals are engaged in scholarship rather than in union politics, working class and proletarian activity. Seemingly, it isn’t the leading minds in British academic life and ethical thinking who are leading the Boycott. In fact it is the other way around, the boycott is led by some minor academics with very little to say about ethics and even less to say about the specific conflict. This fact is actually repeatedly exposed in televised debates. The anti-Zionist movement in Britain has yet to find the appropriate eloquent answer to the Dershowitzes of this world.

Three, when it comes to the Palestinian solidarity discourse I can identify two modes of discussion: the ethical and political. The ethical mode is obviously evoked by a natural humanist reaction to the endless flood of images of Israeli criminal activity. The political discourse, on the other hand, is pretty much autonomous and detached from the conflict. It has a lot to do with maintenance of some particular decaying old-school socialists within the fading progressive Western discourse. It has very little to do with Palestine and the transitions within the Palestinian struggle. When it comes to the current boycott we are unfortunately operating within a political mode rather than an ethical one. I say unfortunately, because Palestinian reality is neither an isolated event in history nor it is isolated in the region. Had the academics been ethically orientated, they would have to ask themselves what they, their unions and Universities have been doing to stop the ongoing slaughter in Iraq. What do they do to oppose the British Government that is engaged in crimes not different from Israel’s? What are the British academics doing now to stop the British value system from a total collapse? I am very sad and ashamed to say that as far as State terrorism is concerned Blair and Olmert are pretty much an equal match. If this isn’t enough, Brown Launch is not very promising either. Yet, British academics expect the Israelis to do something they fail to do.

However, as I said before, I am in favour of any form of restrictions on Israel, on its financial sectors, yet, by behaving politically while avoiding an ethical debate we are actually losing to the Israelis and to their lobbies.

Most importantly, if we decide to go for an academic Boycott, if we decide to burn books or to silence other peoples thoughts, then I really want to know why do we stop with Israeli academics or institutes? Shouldn’t we really ban any possible contact with any Zionists, people and institutes who openly support the idea of a racist State? As you certainly realise, unlike South Africa, Zionism, the ideological core behind Israel, is a global movement. Shouldn’t we ban as well any form of racially orientated activity? Shouldn’t we stop academic as well as smear campaigner David Hirsh and his racially orientated cohorts and then later continue with Jewish Socialists (being a racially oriented progressive group)? Where do we draw the line? I do not know the answers, instead I believe that the best way around it is to support freedom of speech categorically, whether it is David Irving, David Hirsh or even Tony Greenstein.

Mary: OK, so you fully support any kind of instrument that puts pressure and pulls the economic rug out from under Israel, but you have some reservations about the academic boycott against Israeli universities, because of the nature of the boycott being restricting academic freedom.

Gilad: I would even just call it intellectual freedom. I do love diversity. To impose a single narrative is in itself a Talmudic approach and I have to resist it. Being trained as a continental philosopher, I know very well that the proponents of the most enlightening ideas in the late 19th century and pre WWII 20th century were not exactly progressive. How to say it, Heidegger was a Nazi at least for a while and as it seems, both Levinas and Leo Strauss were courageous enough to admit that the man may be the greatest thinker of our millennium.”

I myself would add that if Tony Greenstein actually articulated an argument, rather than smear and engage strictly in character assassination, I would not have to waste so much time exposing some of his lies, and mind, I am ignoring the bulk of the others due to time constrictions. But it seems he does not produce anything but texts using character assassination, not against Zionists, but against people who denounce Zionism on a constant and daily basis, and therefore, I believe that the letter Palestinians and activists wrote is a step in the right direction. If he wants to participate in the discourse, he should, and as a matter of fact, while he is calling for us to be excluded and silenced, based on a series of smears and distortions, we are calling on him to focus on Palestinians rather than on two European Palestinian activists who are quite well-circulated. But rather than address the content in any meaningful way of the material others write and distribute, he comes out with a lie and distortion to smear the author. It is just what Dershowitz does.

Number 5) Greenstein writes:“The one semi-sensible question Rooij asks is what in American society produces support for Zionism. But the only answer his friends provide is the Jews. Apart from ignoring the much more numerous Christians for Zionism they totally fail to even begin to answer it. Yet it is not difficult to understand why the USA projects its power in the way it does economic, military, imperial reasons oil for example. But this means having an analysis of class society and imperialism, something Atzmon and friends explicitly reject.”

Answer: Now, this in itself is quite interesting. On my blog, I have dozens of articles denouncing Christian Zionists. I have never seen a single thing written or circulated on the argument by Greenstein, ever. I have, on the other hand, seen him say he is “thrilled” that Zunes “demolished Walt and Mearsheimer”. You see, differently from almost all the major scholars and researchers, not to mention activists, Tony doesn’t think there’s a lobby. And, where does he get the idea Atzmon and his friends reject the discussion of class society and imperialism!? Again, Atzmon rejects imperialism quite often in his writing. He may not be quoting Gramsci, but his thesis is about hegemony and consensus by the super powers in order to restrict the narrative and allow the powers to maintain dominance. I myself have so many articles against imperialism on the blog alone, I can’t begin to see where he finds a rejection of this concept.

Number 6) Greenstein writes:“There are a number of errors in Rooijs article, eg. That I sent defamatory letters to the venue where Atzmon was due to speak. Not true. I sent no letters. It was an article in the local press that alerted them to the meeting. Nor was it a church hall. But it is this attention to detail that marks out Rooij as the quality journalist that he is.”

Answer: No, he may not have sent defamatory letters. He merely plastered the walls with flyers. Indeed, the venue was a church. This is a letter the organiser wrote to Tony, which was published on my blog:

“The immediate reason that I withdrew from the Brighthelm, Tony, was that you had, without permission, started pasting notices on the premises opposing the meeting and this notice included a copy of the Calder article. These notices were bound to be a major embarrassment to the church. Moreover by the manner in which you acted, the manager was bound to deduce that further such behaviour was likely. Indeed you were announcing your picket. To say, therefore, that you did not put pressure on the Brighthelm is disingenuous. It is ironic that you take me to task for damaging the Palestine solidarity movement in holding this meeting when your actions do precisely that – and I, of course do not accept that the Gilad Meeting does anyway. I do not believe for a moment that you thought it unfortunate that the manager of the Centre caught you in the act of putting up these posters. Certainly he was affected by the grossly distorted view of Gilad Atzmon given in the article – that was precisely your intention. He hadn’t got the time to investigate what, at your instigation I’m sure, Jean Calder had written. When he called me to discuss the matter I relieved him of any further embarrassment by withdrawing.”

Cheers,Francis

Number 7) Greenstein writes:“Yes Sue Blackwell, who led the academic boycott is my comrade. But surprising as it may seem, I am not responsible for her web site! This is what is usually called guilt by association. McCarthyism in other words.”Answer: It is strange he says this! I am held responsible for things that I have not written, and for websites I have nothing to do with. As a matter of fact, by way of his accusations, Greenstein habitually quotes commenters from my blog posts. Not my own comments, and he attributes them to me. He also is now going through the names with a nit comb (as if my friend who has compiled and thought of the list is supposed to filter people who sign, we are in a free society, still, aren’t we? And, I wonder, has petitions he has signed had only names he knows and swears bonafides on?) This is usually called guilt by association. MacCarthyism, in other words.” If the mirror fits….. Oh, not to mention, I keep getting harassed now to chop this name or that name off the list. Well, that will still leave a few hundred people who said “enough”. There are many other inaccuracies and insinuations from Tony that are not verified, as well as his opinion bandied as fact and truth. I don’t care to address them now. I am sure that just this small sampling is sufficient to give an idea of who we are dealing with. And, to close, I would like to mention that the top Palestinian bloggers, well-known and respected activists and writers have signed the open letter, many with comments stating their total solidarity with Gilad and I, and stating that his campaigns were obscene and must end. In five days, 200 people have signed. In five days, I have not seen a single Palestinian, or anyone else, for that matter, come out in solidarity or defence of Tony Greenstein. He himself has to write his own harangue and defence, while spamming sites and even my own inbox with more bald-faced lies that he is unable to substantiate. These are the people and groups that have asked for him to stop it.